coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
4.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Goleniów, Poland.
5.  On 19 June 2000 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of killing D.L., his fiancée.
6.  On 20 June 2000 the Świnoujście District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) ordered his detention. It considered that placing the applicant in custody was justified by the existence of strong evidence against him and the gravity of the charges. Since he had attempted to flee, his detention was necessary to ensure the proper course of the proceedings.
7.  The applicant’s detention was subsequently prolonged several times by the Szczecin Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy). Each time the court repeated the reasons it had previously given.
8.  On 1 March 2001 the applicant lodged an application for release with the Świnoujście District Prosecutor (Prokurator Rejonowy). The prosecutor dismissed the application on 7 March 2001.
9.  On 26 April 2001 the Świnoujście District Prosecutor lodged a bill of indictment with the Szczecin Regional Court. The applicant was charged with murder (he had strangled his fiancée) and fraud.
10.  On 30 January 2002 the Szczecin Regional Court convicted him as charged and sentenced him to 15 years’ imprisonment.
11.  The Poznań Court of Appeal quashed that judgment and remitted the case on 14 May 2002.
12.  The applicant remained in custody.
13.  On 13 June 2002 the Poznań Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) ordered that the applicant remain in detention until 30 September 2002.
14.  On 19 June 2002 the court refused his application for release.
15.  Subsequently, the applicant’s detention was extended every 3 months by the Szczecin Regional Court, for the same reasons as before.
16.  The applicant lodged numerous unsuccessful applications for release with the Regional Court.
17.  On 7 October 2004 the Szczecin Regional Court convicted the applicant of murder and sentenced him to 25 years’ imprisonment. The court stressed the depraved nature of the crime and maintained that there were no mitigating circumstances in the case.
18.  The Poznań Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance judgment on 29 December 2004.
19.  On 20 October 2005 the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy) dismissed the applicant’s cassation appeal.
7.  The applicant was born in 1936 and lives in Namysłów.
8.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
9.  On 1 September 1992 the applicant signed a lease contract with a co‑operative. On 22 April 1993 the contract was terminated by the lessor and the applicant was barred from entering the leased premises.
10.  On 21 July 1993 the applicant brought a civil action against the co‑operative before the Kalisz Regional Court. He claimed that the lease contract had been terminated in breach of its provisions. He further alleged that as a result of the early termination he had suffered serious financial losses. He sought pecuniary damages and reimbursement of amounts he had paid in taxes in connection with the contract.
11.  The first hearing in the case took place on 16 February 1994. The following two hearings were held on 12 June 1995 and 2 February 1996. An expert was appointed at the latter hearing. The first-instance judgment was given on 30 April 1997.
12.  On 25 July 1997 the applicant lodged an appeal with the appellate court. On 13 November 1997 the Court of Appeal in Łódź quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case for re-examination. It pointed out that the first-instance court had erred in the assessment of the evidence and that certain facts relevant for the outcome of the case required further clarification.
13.  The Regional Court, having re-examined the case, dismissed the applicant’s action on 30 June 1998. The applicant appealed on 29 July 1998. On 13 January 1999 the Court of Appeal again quashed the judgment of the Regional Court and remitted the case for re-examination. It stated that the first-instance court had partly failed to assess the evidence which was crucial for the case.
14.  No hearings were held throughout 1999.
15.  On 14 January 2000, when the case was still pending before the Regional Court, the applicant extended his claim.
16.  On 16 February 2000 the Regional Court informed him that as a result of bankruptcy proceedings concerning the defendant co-operative, a motion had been lodged with the competent bankruptcy court to strike it out of the commercial register. The court stated that the final judgment would be given on 28 February 2000. This information notwithstanding, the case was closed only on 20 December 2000, when the Kalisz Regional Court decided to discontinue the proceedings, considering that the defendant co‑operative had been declared bankrupt and had been liquidated.
17.  The applicant appealed against the decision on 18 January 2001. On 3 April 2001 the Łódź Court of Appeal dismissed it.
18.  Parallel to these proceedings, the applicant tried to secure his claim in the bankruptcy proceedings concerning the co-operative. However, his request for the creation of a mortgage on a property of the co‑operative was dismissed on the ground that in the first set of the proceedings the applicant had not obtained any judgment enabling him to secure his claim.
6.  The applicant was born in 1944 and lives in Istanbul.
7.  The applicant and his brother are the only successors of their mother, who died in 1983. The applicant’s mother was the co-owner of certain plots of land in Eminönü, Istanbul. Following her demise, the applicant had conflicts with his brother regarding the distribution of her estate.
8.  On 28 December 1994 the applicant initiated civil proceedings against his brother before the Üsküdar Civil Court and claimed pecuniary damage resulting from the unjust distribution of his mother’s estate.
9.  On 6 March 2003 Üsküdar Civil Court requested the registry records of the title deeds to the land in question from the Eminönü Land Registry.
10.  On 17 December 2003, in order to establish the prevailing market value of the plots, the court appointed a committee of experts to conduct an evaluation study on location and submit reports to the court.
11.  On 6 May 2004 the committee of experts conducted this study and submitted a report to the court.
12.  On 13 May 2004 as the applicant and his brother had reached a settlement, after holding fifty-five hearings, the Üsküdar Civil Court ordered the defendant to pay 500,000,000 Turkish liras to the applicant, together with the interest accruing from 28 December 1994.
8.  The applicant was born in 1944 and lives in the city of Yalta, Ukraine.
9.  In March 2000 the applicant lodged a claim with the Yalta City Court against the local social welfare department, challenging the refusal of the latter to award her a higher pension. In her claim, the applicant maintained that, under Article 46 of the Constitution and Article 19 of the Law on Pensions, her pension should not be lower than the minimum living standard. Therefore, given that her pension was fixed at UAH 74.70 per month and the minimum living standard was established at UAH 118.30 per month, the applicant claimed a corresponding increase in her pension.
10.  On 4 April 2000 the court decided against the applicant. The court established in particular that, although Article 19 of the Law on Pensions provided the possibility for a higher pension, it also limited the amount to a maximum sum which the applicant in fact received. The court did not consider the applicant’s argument about the inconsistency of the amount of her pension with the minimum living standard guaranteed by Article 46 of the Constitution.
11.  The applicant appealed against the judgment of the Yalta City Court to the Supreme Court of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea. In her cassation appeal the applicant repeatedly claimed that her pension should not be lower than the minimum living standard, as defined in Article 46 of the Constitution, and that the constitutional provisions have supremacy over the provisions of normal laws.
12.  On 3 July 2000 the Supreme Court of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea upheld the decision of the first instance court. The court did not consider the applicant’s appeal from the viewpoint of Article 46 of the Constitution.
4.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Budapest.
5.  On 28 February 1995 the Budapest Regional Court ordered the liquidation of a co-operative, of which the applicant was a shareholder.
6.  On 1 March 1995 the Regional Court appointed a liquidator and invited the creditors, including the applicant, to submit their exact claims.
7.  On 19 May 1995 the shareholders established a “creditors’ group” in order to enforce their claims jointly.
8.  On 26 July 1995 the applicant and other creditors challenged the liquidator’s decision to quash an earlier resolution of the co-operative’s president to terminate, in extraordinary dismissal proceedings, certain employment contracts with the co-operative. The proceedings concerning this problem were later separated.
9.  On 20 January 1996 the court issued a decision on the classification of certain securities or claims held by the members. The creditors’ group appealed. On 4 July 1996 the Supreme Court quashed the decision. The subsequent re-classification was accepted by 485 creditors and refused by 157, and was finally confirmed by the Supreme Court on 18 June 1997.
10.  On 30 March 1998 the liquidator submitted his final report. It was upheld by the court on 28 July 1999. The report dealt with altogether 1,253 claims, of which 581 were accepted.
11.  On 7 October 1999 the creditors’ group appealed against the decision upholding the final report. The court rejected this objection. However, on 21 June 2001 the Supreme Court quashed this decision and remitted the question to the Regional Court. In the resumed proceedings, hearings were held on 10 October 2002 and 6 November 2003.
12.  On 5 December 2003 the objection against the final report was dismissed by the Regional Court. On 12 July 2004 the Supreme Court quashed this decision in its part concerning the closing balance sheet and remitted this issue to the Regional Court.
13.  A further hearing took place on 5 May 2005.
14.  On 18 May 2005 the court rejected various objections concerning the liquidator’s decisions. On 9 December 2005 an appeal against this decision filed by the applicant – who had in the meantime become president of the creditors’ group – had not yet been adjudicated.
15.  Meanwhile, a new final report was filed on 14 July 2005 and a legal-aid lawyer was appointed for the applicant.
16.  The liquidation proceedings are apparently still pending.
5.  The applicants live in the village of Samgorodok, the Cherkassy region, Ukraine.
6.  In February 2002 the “Agro-Ros” Ltd company instituted two sets of proceedings against the Smilyanskiy District Council and each of the applicants, challenging the decision of the Council to provide the applicants with certain plots of land.
7.  By two decisions of 12 August 2003, the Cherkassy Regional Commercial Court found against the applicants. On 18 November 2003 the Kyiv Commercial Court of Appeal dismissed the applicants’ appeals and upheld the decisions of the first-instance court.
8.  On 16 March 2004 the Higher Commercial Court of Ukraine, upon the applicants’ appeals, quashed the decisions of the lower courts and remitted the case for a fresh consideration.
9.  On 25 May 2004 the Supreme Court of Ukraine, upon appeal of the “Agro-Ros” Ltd company, quashed the resolutions of the Higher Commercial Court (постанови Вищого господарського суду) on the ground that the findings of the Higher Court had not corresponded to the factual circumstances and had been unfounded and erroneous, and upheld the resolutions of the Kyiv Commercial Court of Appeal.
4.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Amasya.
5.  On 9 June 1993 the applicant began working as a watchman at the Belevi Municipality, attached to the Taşova District in the province of Amasya. Under Turkish law, his employment status was that of a civil servant. On 8 June 1995, relying on three appraisal reports drafted in the past two years, the Municipality terminated the applicant’s employment contract.
6.  On 12 June 1995 the applicant initiated proceedings against the Municipality in the Samsun Administrative Court and contested the termination of his contract. Furthermore, he requested to be awarded his monthly salary, which was 7,630,000 Turkish Liras (TRL)[1], together with the interest, for the period during which he was unemployed.
7.  On 27 November 1996 the administrative court dismissed the applicant’s request. He appealed and requested the suspension of the enforcement of the decision.
8.  By an interim decision of 27 August 1997, the Supreme Administrative Court suspended the enforcement of the administrative court’s decision of 27 November 1996, as well as the Municipality’s decision to dismiss the applicant. The applicant resumed his work at the Municipality.
9.  On 3 February 2000 the Supreme Administrative Court found that the Municipality had in fact dismissed several employees following the election of a new mayor. It was established that the Municipality had been relying on identical and stereotyped appraisal reports, which did not sufficiently reflect the reasons for their dismissal. Accordingly, the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the decision of the Samsun Administrative Court.
10.  On 31 May 2000 the Samsun Administrative Court followed the judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court and annulled the decision of the Municipality. The court further ordered that the applicant be reinstated in his job and that his monthly salary and related pecuniary rights be paid to him for the period during which he had been entitled to perform his duties.
11.  On 13 December 2001 the Council of State rejected the appeal filed by the Municipality. This judgment was served on the applicant on 3 April 2002.
12.  To date, the Municipality has not made any payment to the applicant.
4.  The applicants were born in 1955, 1934 and 1968 respectively, and live in Miskolc, Hungary.
5.  In 1993 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicants and other suspects. In the context of a series of complicated economic offences, they were charged with several counts of aggravated fraud, tax fraud, forgery of documents, bribery, fraudulent bankruptcy and accounting crimes. In the ensuing proceedings the applicants were assisted by defence counsel of their choice.
6.  On 25 November 1996 the first applicant’s bank accounts were frozen in order to secure the eventual confiscation of any criminal profit he might have made. Simultaneously, the applicants’ homes were searched. On 10 June 1997 the Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén County Regional Court changed the decision of 25 November 1996 and extended the freezing measure to include all of the first applicant’s assets.
7.  On 23 June 1995 the Miskolc District Public Prosecutor’s Office preferred a bill of indictment. The charges concerned altogether eight defendants.
8.  After having held 30 hearings between 17 June 1997 and 7 July 1998, on 8 July 1998 the Miskolc District Court convicted the applicants of several counts of fraud, tax fraud, fraudulent bankruptcy, forgery of documents as well as accounting crimes, while acquitting them of other charges. The first applicant was sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment and to the confiscation of his frozen property in the value of 300 million Hungarian forints; the second and the third applicants were sentenced to three and a half years’ and three years’ imprisonment respectively. In the reasoning of its 76-page judgment, the District Court relied on evidence given by numerous witnesses, several opinions prepared by expert accountants, tax advisers and engineers, and documentary evidence.
9.  In October 1998 the applicants submitted their initial and, on 14 May 1999, their detailed appeal. Meanwhile, on 6 January 1999 the Heves County Regional Court was appointed to hear the case, for reasons of incompatibility, instead of the competent Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén County Regional Court.
10.  After having held a hearing on 22 June 1999, on 20 September 2000 the Heves County Regional Court re-characterised part of the offences committed by the applicants, acquitted them of some charges, and reduced the first applicant’s prison term to five years and six months, and the second applicant’s term to three years. For the remainder, it upheld the first-instance judgment.
11.  On 29 December 2000 the second and third applicants filed a petition for review. On 6 March 2002 the Supreme Court acquitted them of the charge of tax fraud and upheld the remainder of the second-instance judgment in their respect.
12.  The first applicant’s repeated requests for a retrial were finally refused on 21 May 2002.
6.  The applicant is an active officer of the Russian navy, third rank captain. He was born in 1963 and lives in Kronshtadt, Leningrad Region.
7.  The applicant was involved in a dispute with his employer, the Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation, concerning the amount of compensation of his travel expenses.  On 7 March 2002 the Kronshtadt Garrison Military Court awarded him arrears in the amount of 598 Russian Roubles (RUR) and RUR 202 in compensation of legal expenses. This decision was not appealed against and on 17 March 2002 became final.
8.  On 21 March 2002 the court issued a writ of execution. The applicant forwarded it with accompanying documents to the State treasury office. On 2 April 2002 the writ was returned to the applicant unexecuted. The treasury office explained that the debtor had no available funds which could be used for paying the judgment debt. The applicant was advised to address the writ of execution to the head office of the Ministry of Finance, which the applicant did on 10 April 2002. However, the judgment remained unexecuted.
9.  On 2 July 2002 the applicant wrote a new letter to the Ministry of Finance, requesting an explanation as to why the judgment remained unexecuted to that date. On 26 August 2002 the Ministry of Finance informed the applicant that the writ of execution had been transmitted to the Ministry of Defence with a view to prepare a budget call for the respective amount. They also informed the applicant that the Ministry of Finance had no power to enforce the judgment and write off the money from the accounts of the Ministry of Defence without their acceptance.
10.  On 31 December 2002 the Ministry of Finance transferred to the applicant RUR 598 with reference to the arrears due pursuant to the judgment of 7 March 2002.  On 1 March 2004 the applicant received the rest of the amount awarded by the court (RUR 202).
6.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Šentjur.
7.  On 5 May 1998 and 8 January 1999 the Pension and Disability Insurance Institute of Slovenia (Zavod za invalidsko in pokojninsko zavarovanje Slovenije, “PDII”) issued decisions concerning the invalidity status of the applicant.
8. On 25 January 1999 the applicant instituted proceedings against PDII in the Ljubljana Labour and Social Court (Delovno in socialno sodišče v Ljubljani), contesting the above decisions.
Between 7 April 1999 and 31 December 2002 the applicant lodged four written submissions and adduced evidence.
On 6 September 2001 and 11 February 2002 he requested that a date be set for a hearing.
On 13 November 2000 he requested that the case be heard as a matter of priority, which was rejected by the court.
Of the three hearings held between 19 June 2002 and 19 March 2003, none was adjourned at the request of the applicant.
During the proceedings, the court appointed a medical expert.
At the last hearing, the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 25 March 2003.
9. On 1 April 2003 the applicant appealed to the Higher Labour and Social Court (Višje delovno in socialno sodišče).
On 16 April 2004 the court rejected the applicant’s appeal.
The judgement was served on the applicant on 5 May 2004.
10. On 31 May 2004 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče).
On 18 January 2005 the court rejected the appeal.
The judgement was served on the applicant on 9 February 2005.
6.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Chisinau.
7.  In 2000 the applicant lent 10,000 United States dollars (USD) to A. When A. was only able to return USD 2,500, they agreed, together with T. (A.’s wife at the time), to sell their apartment to the applicant in order to guarantee the return, in instalments, of the outstanding debt. The agreement (signed on 10 November 2000) stated that should the instalments be paid, the applicant would sell the apartment back to T.
8.  Pursuant to that agreement, on 11 December 2000, the applicant concluded a contract for the purchase of the apartment from T. The contract specified the address and surface area of the apartment and confirmed that, before concluding the contract, the applicant had paid the entire price freely agreed on by the parties, namely 96,720 Moldovan lei (MDL) (the equivalent of USD 7,818 at the time).
9.  In accordance with the contract, the former owner (T.) was to vacate the apartment by 1 April 2001. When A. failed to pay any instalments, the applicant requested the family to vacate the apartment. They refused to do so and the applicant initiated court proceedings for their eviction. T. lodged a counter-claim, requesting the annulment of the contract of sale because in reality she had only intended to guarantee, through the contract, the return of her husband’s debt to the applicant.
10.  The Centru District Court found in favour of the applicant on 11 June 2001, rejecting T.’s counter-claim. On 17 October 2001 the Chişinău Regional Court upheld the District Court’s judgment. On 7 February 2002 the Court of Appeal also upheld that judgment. This judgment was final and enforceable.
11.  T. wrote to a number of State authorities (the President, the Government, the Parliament, etc.) asking them to help re-open the proceedings. On 22 April 2002 Mr V. Mişin, a vice-president of the Parliament, wrote to the Prosecutor General asking him to initiate the re-opening of proceedings before the Supreme Court of Justice. The letter was annexed to the case-file.
12.  On 5 May 2002 the Prosecutor General filed a request for the annulment of all the above-mentioned judgments and for the re-opening of the proceedings. On 10 July 2002 the Supreme Court of Justice upheld the Prosecutor General’s request for annulment and ordered a full re-hearing of the case in the first-instance court. The court found that the lower courts had not paid sufficient attention to the fact that the applicant had lent USD 10,000 to T.’s husband and that T. had concluded the contract for the sale of the apartment with the specific intention of guaranteeing the return of the money and not of actually selling it. In its view, “the totality of circumstances mentioned cast doubt on the well-founded character, lawfulness and fairness of the judgments adopted in the case”.
13.  On 4 December 2002 the Centru District Court found in T.’s favour and declared the contract of sale null and void, rejecting the applicant’s request for eviction. That judgment was upheld on 12 February 2003 by the Chişinău Regional Court and on 8 May 2003 by the Court of Appeal.